March 16, afternoon
ISSUES AND DIALECTICS In italics the notes of saturday 16.03.2013 In the second part of the workshop the group had a more general debate about the possible critics and issues that regards the production of the NMM book, which are summarized as follow: Dialectic: mapping Not all Inurians are part of the NMM. Some people don’t believe in the power of mapping: they are rather interested in processes which believe cannot be graphically represented. For those in NMM mapping is just an instrument. This issue should be more in depth taken into consideration when drafting the methodological framework of the NMM. There should be a section on mapping, explaining why and how we decided to go for this community mapping exercise and frame our decision in a wider debate that deals with Bottom up GIS, open source mapping ,and community based mapping with activism (Laura). Also the unmappable. And the critical aspects. If it becomes too technical we put it into the introduction to the second chapter (Richard). Dialectic: Gender Gender issues are in our principles. Marvi proposed in the principles to mention that we have to deal with productive and reproductive work together. And that the gender difference have to be faced without prejudice (self definition / hetero-definition) Dialectic: Academia and Activism Is writing a book an action? · We do no have to think in B&W. it is not academia versus activist. But something in between. ( Patrice) Academic activists. Activist academics. We are still into research or gathering /describing urban struggles and urban situations. · This debate is part of the History of INURA (Academia versus activism is an ongoing debate for more than 20 years) and people had been mixed (Richard), it is important to find a balance: Inura stands for theory and action not academia and action; we should overcome this duality. · However, there are/were activists, who have problem with academics and reject academia, and somehow did not participate any longer in INURA. Activsts rejecting INURA because they are a bunch of academics. ( Lorenzo) · It is true though that activists and academics have different agenda and tasks. Academics parallel situation as activist. Academics have specific interests ( e.g. saying what does INURA add to may publication list?) and activism what INURA add to my battle? Glenn didn’t feel comfortable anymore in the environment. Not in their place, not at ease. Gilde, we don’t need it, we don’t want it, we don’t have time, and Luton Not their agenda, not their needs, not necessary, no benefit beyond of political, emotional, occasional practical support. · And yet INURA has a much broader perspective than both sides (Patrice) · Networking connecting is a some form of action. Networking is the main agenda of INURA (laura) e.g. I worked in the past with ctiymined which are non academics but activists because of INURA. Things mix up. · Keep the dialectics alive and the nourishing dialogue between academia and activist. In the sense of Gramsci. Organic intellectual. Intellettuale organico.(Marvi, it means intellectuals that are part of the political groups (or class) that is fighting to overcome inequality, unfair and want to built different possible urban worlds). The aim is to overcome injustice, you can contribute in different way, but the aim is not the theory, is not the action is to do a revolution (!), as a radical change of the existent. Because we act and do reseach in a world that is characterised by the egemony of neoliberal thought and practices there is always the danger of cooptation (that make your collective and individual effort useless or (worse) damaging. Margit Mayer writes about how groups are being coopted ( marvi) and about movements and phases (the contribution during INURA Tallin). · Are there other networks, social movements have their work going for 20 years and try to make theory? · Organic intellectual as part of the (new?) declaration? Dialectic: International vs local ''' · Is this a difficult relationship, Important for INURA and for the NMM · INURA people live and do research in their localities and bring their research from their city to INURA Members must do research and theory in their city (but do not focus neither research, nor action only on local, of course). · But doing research in other parts does mean they’re not part of the local action. · INURA from its history is very localized. The view from the beginning is a local view, Is not an internationalism. Makes it difficult to open up. Those coming in make the struggle ..Both academic activism requires to have people that live there. Experts and activists but not experts in struggles in other parts of the world. · INURA has an approach of localism not internationalism. INURA is looking at local fights not international fights. (not all the present people agree on this point). If properly organised, what we do locally is part of the global fight. The idea that the fights on labour and housing held in European counties, have to be at least European, is part of the idea that we will not be able to change things if we act only on local level. (act only in the local level: With globalization it is perhaps no longer what INURA should do? But the way the local is approached brings together diversity. Re. Local and international, local, local is not equal local: The views of old residents of a city differs from that of newcomers to cities. But differ also on matter of class and gender. The process of NMM, i.e. of drawing the maps brings differences of perspectives together. '''Dialectic: North and South / East and West Exclusion of post-colonial perspective Critic of Roger and Ute Cultural study perspective. North South Problematic in INURA Is local international. North South is not only worldwide but also north and south Europe (Lorenzo) This point needs further discussion. Dialectic east/west discussed in Tallinn NOTES 16/03/2013 Mexico meeting debate: Legal and illegal, space of corruption ( it belong not only to the north/south discussion). A proposed chapter for the comparison part of the book is about corruption and the always shifting border between legal, illegal, formal informal. one key case studies is Italy. Angela: there were two discussion sin the medellin group: 1. the colleagues from Medellin when they look at this chart said that the southern countries were mostly in the legal/ illegal space of corruption. NMM is imposed by the north to the south and the south is reacting, and perhaps the south is not adapting to it. We do not want to show Medeliin as result of something imposed from outside. '' ''2. The other discussion was related to the crisis category and they said this is somethig gvery European esp. the way it is affecting southern Europe. The cities in the south are booming and are presenting themselves are booming cities and they are becoming really expensive. Polarization is growing as well as salaries. We have to deal with this perhaps "inverse" development. The gap between south and norht is not so wide, possibly the gap is wider between the country. Teh questyion is not to deal with the crisis but with the booming and who is gaining out of it. '' ''Annalisa: the crisis argument became a red-line in the project NMM and it would be highlighted. '' ''Jacopo: illegal/illegal is not only south/north. '' ''Laura: reference North south A: Roy Angela: the group of Medellin thought that there is a shared assumption within INURA that the south is about illegal/legal debate. Instead the group would like to talk of another kind of south, breaking the "perpetrators victims logics".Some of the logics coming from the north have been not only imposed but appropriated ( the actual urban conditions see booming cities showing new forms of development) and by being appropriated they have been changing, becoming something else from the dominant models. Orhan: In the period of the 1920ies/30ies Tel aviv and Ankara have been taken as example for the period of internationalization, Bauhaus International style and something which can blindly applied anywhere in the world. The NMM has something similar to it. The history of architecture was looked outside EU as adaptation of EU models. Recent research showed that that model was not superimposed but there was a phenomenon of adaptation “translation”. '' ''Iacopo: is the crisis another dialectic to be put in the introduction? No I do nto think so. It shuld be part of the categories debate. '' ''Laura+Lorenzo:Do we consider the crisis as fundemental phenomenon for the production of NMM?' ''Marvi: how do we deal with the crisis as key word for the introduction? restauration of class power? eocnomy? '' ''About legal and illegal the new key word something power structure North south divide consider the prejudices Caterina: I think it is important to have the key word of crisis into the introduction. We agree on having the key word '''CRISIS '''as new dialectic to be discussed in the introduction Camilla: would you like to stress legal/illegal or formal/informal dialectic? let's be clear with waht do we want to deal in this part. Marvi: I think that there is very mobile border between legal and illegal, that moves through time and spaces. But if sometimes it move easily in other is very rigid. Legal illegal is a tensions that have to do with power relations. '' ''Britta: why this legal/illegal key word has to be in the introduction? Lorenzo:the relation between informality/formality and the egal and Illegal is one issue within INURA. Marvi: the point is to deconstruct. Who decide what is legal/illegal? Foulcault say that the power to decide what have to be ruled and what not (i.e. what is formal and what not) is a key power of the state. Laura: I want to raise a point which is an invitation: we need to look at the dialectics as references explaining the NMM they cannot be open urban studies debate. Let's be more focussed on the selection of the key words which are functional to the definition of the NMM. What can we do from now to Llisbon? Which are the next steps? '' ''Marvi: let’s start to feel the notes and then come up with a frame of issues title of sessions. laura: lets agree on the key words and subdivide us into groups ready to write about the key words (eg. two pages). Tehre will be a call for participation to the texts. Preent them to Lisbon but not open to complete revision.Issue the call for controbution into collective text. Catarina: How to proceed withthe rest? ''Do the issue/dialectics appear as part of the timeline or not? Lorenzo: I do not see the time line as the actual structure of the chapter, probably it is the first paragraph that Introduces the proejct. Angela: the timeline was more conceptual the way we discused in Wien. The timeline is conceptually important. Iacopo: Architecture of the book. the timeline are the explanation why we get to the dialectics. Laura: structure of the book. Introduction and chapter 1. a).'Why the project: explained by the timeline '''b). ''Why NMM: explaing the NMM thorugh the dialectics'' ''AGREEMENT ON KEY WORDS on dialectics '' academic vs activism gender international vs local '' ''north/ south est /west mapping '' ''legal/illegal & formal/infomal crisis ( do we change the key word?)